Nick Rahall

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, West Virginia is not normally known for its Native American population, but former West Virginia State Senator Robert K. Holliday recently wrote a highly informative commentary on this matter in the July 19, 1999, edition of the Fayette Tribune. His article focuses in particular on the local Algonquin families in Fayette County and I submit it to be reprinted in the Congressional Record. [From the Fayette Tribune, July 19, 1999] Fayette County Indians Keeping Heritage Alive (Robert K. Holliday) About eight Indian tribes (families) are formally organized in West Virginia, and one such family lineage is found in Fayette County. The familial group here was given a certificate officially on May 13, 1997, and was given a certificate of incorporation by Ken Hechler, secretary of state, under the name of Algonquin People. Each of the family tribes in the state seek to bring about an understanding of Indian culture to the world. They undertake to portray the American Indian lore, musical and narrative, to form a record of the songs and legends of their race. Surely, such civilization of the native American tradition is of great value to the history of human race as well as the history of America. National and state history books are so wrong to show only the brutal side of war when the Indians look out with reference upon the world of nature, and at all times invocationally to the hours of his or her birth and death, as being sacrosanct. They tell of their life in reverences and in symbol and ceremony. Their art is not the extravagance of daily living but it took centuries to evolve. As in Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, the Indians always have had but one God. The Hindus may profess one God that is supreme but the sects have 350 million other gods. It is time that the forces of hate in America realize that all the religions and races have codes of high, decent morality. Let's look a little more closely at the local Algonquin families, headed by a national chief, Stanley Miller of Beckwith, and Cindy Petty, sub-chief, of Oak Hill. In the Fayette-based organization three members come from Ohio, seven from Kentucky, six from North Carolina and eight from Nevada. About 465 are from West Virginia. They have been gathering together about every two months at the Fayette 4-H Camp, Beckwith. Chief Miller reveals and contends that the Algonquins were here when Moses lived, the Egyptians were building the ancient pyramids and the New River was formed before the Nile River, thus substantiating that in itself exposes another reason why the New River was recognized by U.S. Senator Byrd and others as a national river or even could be established as something greater. Algonquins believe in one God as the creator of the world, in spirit of their other spiritual angels. They pinpoint good and evil. They feel the U.S. government should do more for the Indians at their reservations, and more importantly in education and promoting their traditional culture. The Algonquins love America and its Constitution. They do want the government to bring together men and women of all religions and races and strive to end hatred in our blessed land. They deplore the calling of Indians red men or their wives ``squaws.'' To be a member of the local families' tribe, a person may have as little as \1/16\ Indian blood. Some of the tribe colonies are the Shawnee, Fox, Delaware, Sauk, Kickapoo, Miami, Cherokee, Mingo, Mohegan, Seneca and others may be adopted as well. Even in Fayette I am compelled to know that the Indians were here a long, long time ago. With Gov. W.W. Barron and other archaeologists we went to the mouth of Armstrong Creek in 1963 where it was let out that perhaps about 35,000 B.C.E. that aboriginal people were buried there. It was the site of an Indian village of old. We even bored down into the graves to examine the remains and discover other findings. Around the shoulders on the mountain of Armstrong, much now destroyed by surface mining, are more aptly pointed to as Indian works but most often called ``mystery walls'' that have run a few miles. It was of course not the white man that was here first. The date of man's arrival in America is open to discussion, though archaeological evidence from sites suggests many dates before and after 14,000 years ago. Homo sapiens sapiens (fully modern man) were the first to inhabit the Americas during the latter part of the Ice Age. Our real forefathers came over the Bering land bridge that was then formed by ice, and they migrated from Siberia to this land. In Shawnee: Kechtalinnie.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for H.R. 1664, the Steel, Oil and Gas Loan Guarantee bill now before us. The bill guarantees $1 billion in loans to companies already in, or close to filing, for bankruptcy because of the surge of cheap steel imports that have flooded our country. This loan program has historical precedent, which began with government assistance to the Chrysler Corporation in 1980, and similar assistance since then that was provided to the City of New York, Lockheed Aircraft, Penn Central Railroad and Conrail. The steel industry has lost over 10,000 jobs in the past year, and the oil and gas industry over 400,000 jobs over a four year period. It is time for Congress to do for steel, oil and gas what it has done for others in the past--and that is to lend a helping hand. This plan is not a bailout. It is not a direct loan program. It is a tough, guaranteed loan program requiring companies to apply to a board which includes the Secretary of the Treasury. It's costs are fully offset and will be repaid. Please consider the alternative costs of doing nothing. If just one major company goes into bankruptcy, the government will likely spend tens of millions on unemployment benefits alone. Multiply that by several companies, and then add in the lost jobs at suppliers, the lost tax revenue to local, state and federal government coffers, and even possible environmental costs--and you will have sealed the economic fates of States in which entire communities rely upon these industries for jobs and their livelihoods. To be candid, Congress and the Administration dragged its feet far too long by refusing to acknowledge the damage that our trade policies were inflicting upon companies and workers in the steel, oil and gas industries. Our hesitation to act has caused job loss and company bankruptcies across this country. Today, we must do the right thing--to quickly approve and send to the President this loan guarantee for steel, oil and gas companies and their employees. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 1664. It is the right thing to do.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of sorrow that I rise to announce to the body the passing of a former Member of the House of Representatives from West Virginia, Robert H. Mollohan. Bob Mollohan served the United States Senate early in his career as Clerk of the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia from 1949 to 1952. He was elected to this body in 1953, where he served until 1957, at which time he ran for governor of West Virginia. He returned to the House in the 91st Congress, serving from 1969 to 1983 when he retired, and returned to the family insurance business in Fairmont, West Virginia. Bob Mollohan is the father of our distinguished colleague and dear friend, Alan B. Mollohan, who succeeded his father when he was first elected to fill his seat in 1982. Robert Mollohan served with distinction during his time in the House, working for the people of his Congressional District for 17 years. He was a compassionate and caring representative of his people, and a pillar of his community throughout his lifetime. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it was not until he retired from this body that this corner back here became known as the Pennsylvania Corner. Prior to that, it was known only as the West Virginia Corner. He will be sorely missed by West Virginians who will remember his dedication, his compassion, and his thoughtful, caring nature. Robert Mollohan was greatly beloved by his people for his tireless efforts to bring quality and dignity to the lives of West Virginians, and for his deep personal commitment to making sure that their government served them well. But more, he will be missed by his family. Our thoughts and prayers go out to Mrs. Robert, Helen, Mollohan, who survives her husband, and to his son, Representative Alan B. Mollohan, his wife, Barbara, and children, and to other family members as they mourn the great loss of a husband, father, and grandfather, Robert H. Mollohan.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, July 29, 1999, I inadvertently voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 352, the Moakley amendment to prohibit any funding for the U.S. Army School of the America's located at Fort Benning, GA. As a cosponsor of legislation calling for the closure of the School of the Americas, and having consistently voted to prohibit funding for the School of the Americas in the past, I fully intended to cast my vote in favor of the Moakley amendment, rollcall vote No. 352.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding to me, and I appreciate very much his support. He has always been one that speaks with an even hand and wants to balance our environmental needs along with the needs to provide jobs in industry. Several comments were made by the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) in regard to trying to stuff a 20-pound waste into a 5-pound bag, something to that effect, alluding to the fact that this particular provision needs to be changed, this 5-acre limitation that has existed even prior to 1872 actually when we consider the load claims and the Placer Act that were combined in the passage of the mining law of 1872. I am not adverse to looking at changes. That is what I have been trying to do since I have been in this body for 20 some years now is make amendments and make reform of this mining law of 1872 so that we can have jobs in the industry and have protection of the environment at the same time. So I say to the gentleman, I will be glad to look at the comprehensive reform of the mining law. We have tried that in this body. Unfortunately, it has not passed the other body. So I think, if we can have that type of reform, we can probably address some of these needs. I would say also to industry, many of whom when we have tried to reform in the mining law have been moderate and responsible and wanting to sit down at the table and work with us, including the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the subcommittee chairman. There is always, of course, as there is in any facet of society, that fringe out there that does not want to sit down at the table and wants to torpedo any effort at reform. So we have tried to reform this law. We have even passed a bill out of this House of Representatives in a bipartisan passion only to see it move nowhere in the other body. So what we are doing here in this particular amendment, while we cannot look at the entire reform in the mining law, and we are not doing that in this amendment, we are looking at that 5-acre limitation that has been current law that the Interior Department has decided of late to try to enforce, and that is what we are trying to do here with this 5-acre limitation. So I say to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), if that is not sufficient, I am willing to look at it in the context of overall reform.

Mr. RAHALL. Each side?

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. RAHALL. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman. I think we have several more speakers on our side; and I would ask that that time be expanded, please.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. RAHALL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Vermont for his comments, and I want to commend him for the leadership he has shown on both of these amendments and hope that the House in its wisdom will accept both of his amendments.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). Mr. Chairman, enough is enough. The greatest giveaway this Nation has ever experienced should end right now. Here today, on this floor of the House of Representatives, we should join in a resounding voice in saying that enough is enough. The Mining Law of 1872, enacted with Ulysses S. Grant as the President of the United States while Union troops still occupied the South, and when the invention of the telephone and Custer's stand at the Little Bighorn were still 4 years away, that Mining Law of 1872 still stands. Did it serve to help settle the West, as it was intended? Yes, it sure did. Has it worked to produce valuable minerals for our economy? Indeed it has. But today, I submit, it stands as the Jurassic Park of all Federal laws. Today, in this day and age, the Mining Law of 1872 still allows valuable minerals found on Western public lands to be mined for free: No royalty, no return to the American taxpayer. It is our names that are on the deed to these lands. Today, in this day and age, this law allows mining claimholders, for the most part multinational conglomerates, to actually obtain title to these public lands for as little as $2.50 an acre. I know some of my colleagues may find this hard to believe, but it is true. I looked to see if the Mining Law of 1872 was listed in Ripley's Believe It or Not. It was not, but it should be. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleagues that we have tried, we have tried long and hard to reform this law. The chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has been one of our friends along this way in trying to make these reforms. We have tried to comport the law with the values of our modern society as they exist today. We will still continue to try in this endeavor. But today we are seeking to address a single issue in this whole debate. That single issue is this: When one stakes a mining claim, the law says that one can obtain up to five acres of additional public lands, non-mineralized in character, for the purpose of dumping the mining waste. These lands are known as millsites. Indeed, the claimholder can also obtain a title to those lands for that $2.50 an acre price I spoke of earlier. Not content with this arrangement, some in the hardrock mining industry are seeking to gobble up unlimited quantities of public lands in association with their mining claims for waste dumps. The amendment we are offering today simply says no, they cannot do this. The existing law's ratio of mining claims to millsites will stand. The public domain is a public trust. There is an effort under foot to subvert that public trust. It is a land grab at the American taxpayers' expense, a pure land grab. Can they mine, can they mine ore under the existing arrangement? Of course they can. Will the industry continue to profit under the Mining Law of 1872? Certainly it will. But we are here to say that enough is enough. Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the distinguished subcommittee chairman for yielding to me. The points he makes about the legislation, I would note, there was no point of order made against the amendment. In addition, while the Bureau of Land Management manual may have erroneously stated as the gentleman has accurately described it stated, the law and the regulations I believe do have this 5-acre limit. The statute, section 42, title 30, U.S. Code, imposes a limitation that no location for land for use as millsites shall exceed 5 acres in connection with each mining claim. So the manual from which the gentleman quotes accurately is in error, and the law and the statutes are correct.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment to restore funding to the Department of Energy Weatherization program. The Interior appropriations bill calls for a reduction in $13 million in this program. What is worse, it calls for a 25 percent State matching share in order for them to receive weatherization grants in the future. As has already been mentioned, I am not aware of any legislative hearings that have been held on this. It is a rather unique approach and first-time-ever approach to this type of funding. A State matching share for obtaining Federal weatherization grants has never been required in the past and, in my opinion, should not be required in the future. One of the amendments that the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is offering today will strike that provision from the Interior appropriations bill. Including this mandate in H.R. 2466 is legislating on an appropriations bill and should be stricken from the bill. The President has requested increased funding for weatherization, not a cut. This is a program that delivers energy savings of 30 percent and returns $2.40 for every Federal dollar spent in energy, health, safety, housing, and related benefits. More important, these weatherization funds go mostly to low and moderate income senior citizens and to families to help them lower their heating bills in dead winter. Mr. Chairman, fewer than 10 States currently appropriate funds for weatherization purposes. But a vast majority of States have worked hard over the years to leverage other funding, including substantial private contributions, as their share of the energy conservation responsibility, assisting the poorest of our populations. If the States are now required to match Federal weatherization grants by 25 percent, more than 40 States, including my home State of West Virginia, will lose substantially. Weatherization grant funds save energy, and they provide a safe and healthy environment for low income, elderly, and poor families with children. I urge my colleagues to vote for these amendments. Vote to restore the $13 million in funding, and vote to strike the 25 percent State match requirement being added to the national weatherization program. Let me close by reiterating, Mr. Chairman, that these weatherization grants serve the elderly and the poor, enabling those who live in substandard housing to reap the benefits of energy-efficient homes and life-saving warmth in cold weather months. I say support the Sanders amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to, and to celebrate the life of Federal Judge Kenneth K. Hall of West Virginia. Kenneth K. Hall, who was born in Boone County, West Virginia, died at the age of 81 at his home in West Virginia after a 47 year distinguished career as a State and Federal judge. He began his service to our State and the Nation when he became a circuit judge in the county of his birth in 1952 at the age of thirty-three. He was appointed to his federal judge's post in 1971 by President Nixon. Five years later, Judge Hall was named to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, comprised of West Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina and South Carolina. Well-known for his humor, his wisdom, his straightforward manner and understanding of West Virginians, he is best known for the precedent- setting decision he made in 1995 when he wrote the majority decision that rejected efforts by The Citadel--a Charleston, South Carolina military college--to ban female cadets from attending the college. The man who made the decision in the case of The Citadel, was a man who had the courage of his convictions. He had honed his skills as a Federal judge early in his career in West Virginia, when he outlawed the State's existing abortion law and presided over a violent school textbook controversy (the Kanawha County Textbook case). He also presided over a class action lawsuit against Pittston Coal Company, over the tragic 1973 Buffalo Creek Flood which resulted in the deaths of 125 West Virginians and wiped out a small town. The lawsuit ended with a $13.5 million settlement for 625 plaintiffs. Upon learning of his death, U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd said that ``he was someone on whom I could always rely for straightforward, no- nonsense advice . . .'' This statement has been made by the many, many friends he left behind and who remember him with reverence and deep respect. Before becoming a judge, Kenneth Hall served as Mayor of Madison in his home county of Boone, when in 1968 he ran unsuccessfully for the State Supreme Court--but he persevered and went on to serve as a hearing examiner for the Social Security Administration before his elevation to the federal bench. Judge Hall is survived by his wife, Gerry, and his son Keller. Our thoughts and prayers go out to them, and we keep them and all West Virginians in our hearts as they mourn the loss of Judge Hall's incisive humor, his masterful storytelling, and his deep and compassionate understanding of the people he loved and served so well.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise support of this rule, and I wish to particularly commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), my good friend, the Subcommittee on Interior chairman, as well as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member. These gentleman have had to wrestle hard with severe caps and meeting their responsibilities; and to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) in particular I say I am indebted to him on behalf of the coalfield residents throughout this country for the $11 million increase in Abandoned Mine Land funding. And I also want to say to the gentleman from Ohio that many of us appreciate his support for the Heritage Area program, citizens working together from the grassroots to celebrate and promote their heritage. I am indebted to the gentleman from Ohio for funding this worthy program as well. In conclusion, I like to draw attention to three amendments that will be offered to the bill today. One seeks to strike the funding limitation it carries for the American Heritage Rivers program. One of these heritage rivers flows through my congressional district, the New River. I cannot tell my colleagues how much excitement this designation has generated from local citizens, community leaders and chambers of commerce. I urge support of this amendment. Another amendment to be offered by myself, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) seeks to maintain some semblance of sanity in the mining law program. It is my hope that perhaps the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) will be kind to us when this amendment is offered. And the third amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and myself and a cast of thousands seeks to bolster funding for the low income weatherization program. This is so critically important to so many people who are struggling to improve their lot in our society. I urge adoption of the rule, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, today I along with the gentleman from Nevada, Jim Gibbons, are introducing a bill to grant a federal charter to the American Association of State Geologists. Indeed, the grant of a federal charter to this organization would have a direct correlation to the very first such charter ever granted by the Congress, in 1863 to the National Academy of Science. Both organizations are premised on serving the general public through scientific research and the advancement of knowledge. The American Association of State Geologists was established in 1908 and today is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to advance the science and practical application of geology and related earth sciences. Its membership is comprised to the heads of Geological Surveys in the various States, territories and commonwealths of the United States. In fact, the first State geological survey was established in 1823 in North Carolina and by the time the U.S. Geological Survey was established in 1879, 35 State geological surveys already existed. Over the past 91 years, the AASG has served the Nation and each and every State by bringing its unique and important state perspective to the deliberations of the federal government on issues related to or involving geology or geoscience. State geological surveys have generated and made publically available much of the geological and geoscience information and services that led to the growth of our Nation, its economic development, general prosperity, environmental quality and the quality of life we enjoy today. Their mission remains equally important to our Nation's future. Every member of Congress and their staff have, at one time or another, consulted the State geological surveys concerning issues related to geology in their districts. State geological surveys are universally relied upon for their expertise and relevant, credible, and timely maps, information and services concerning energy, mineral, water, land, biological/ecological and environmental resources, as well as information relevant to avoid or mitigate natural hazards such as earthquakes, volcanoes, landslides and the like. There is no doubt that the AASG has earned a high reputation within the federal government for its expertise, credibility, candor and trust. It is frequently called upon by the executive, legislative, and judicial branches to bring the state perspective on geological issues to the attention and consideration of the federal government and especially Congress. In my view, the nature, extent, magnitude, and high quality of the contributions of State geological surveys and AASG to our Nation fully merits recognition of their critical role through issuance of a federal charter. AASG is exactly the sort of organization that federal charters were intended to recognize. Mr. Speaker, it would be completely fitting and proper for Congress to grant a federal charter to AASG and by doing so would return to the spirit of the first federal charter granted to the National Academy of Science in 1863 recognizing the importance of science to our Nation.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in my capacity as the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Ground Transportation. I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Virginia for giving some funding priority to those transit new start projects which are under full funding grant agreements. The authorizing committee undertook an extensive review of these projects when preparing legislation enacted last year as TEA 21 which among its many initiatives authorized the transit program through fiscal year 2003. Among the new start projects being funded in the pending legislation is the Tren Urbano in San Juan, Puerto Rico. As I noted in a recent letter to the gentleman from Virginia, San Juan is densely populated and at times its transportation facilities appear to be paralyzed with congestion. In fact, downtown San Juan has an exceedingly high vehicle density, some 4,200 vehicles per square mile, which is expected to increase by almost 50 percent by 2010. In a situation like this, the Tren Urbano system is a logical, environmentally benign means to facilitate transportation in the area. The pending measure, in accordance with the recommendations of the FTA, would appropriate $82 million for Tren Urbano for the next fiscal year. I applaud the committee and the ranking member for making this recommendation. However, what I find disturbing is language included in the Committee Report accompanying this appropriation measure. In the Report, the Committee notes it is troubled by the findings of a financial management oversight contractor which indicate that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico may not have sufficient financial resources to build and maintain the project. Consequently, a number of time consuming reports are required before the appropriation would be available. First, I would note that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, in its extensive review of this project, did not at any point find anything which would lead one to question the ability of Puerto Rico to meet its financial responsibilities with respect to Tren Urbano and at the same time adequately meet other transportation requirements of the region. In addition, earlier this year the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee requested that the General Accounting Office conduct a review of all existing projects under Full Funding Grant Agreements. The results of this review are expected shortly. Second, it is my understanding that the financial management report referenced by the Committee Report does not exist, at least, in final form. With all due respect to the Committee, it is relying on hearsay and innuendo rather than official reports with respect to this particular project. The fact of the matter is that the so-called financial management report at issue here was never approved by the FTA. Third, I would urge the Committee to rethink the costly bells and whistles it has recommended be attached to this appropriation. The various reports called for in the Committee Report are simply not necessary, especially since a GAO review is already underway, and will cause delays. As we all know, delays in transportation projects lead to increased costs, and cost overruns, and that is something we are all seeking to avoid. In this regard, I would emphasize that statements made in a Committee Report, even from the Appropriations Committee, do not carry the force of law. Again, I applaud the Committee's funding recommendation in this matter but strongly urge that the appropriation be made final by the Conference Committee without unnecessary strings attached.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise against this legislation for all of the reasons that have been given, but also because of the jeopardy that it imposes for small, quiet, rural areas of our country, those of us without a screaming Dulles Airport in our backyard. The members of this committee who represent small communities in rural areas should take a good look at this bill because it contains a number of initiatives aimed at helping small airports. While a great deal of attention is often focused on the larger airports in big cities, the importance of airports in rural areas is increasing across our Nation. Indeed, these airports are more than a simple facility to serve the traveling public. They are becoming engines for economic development. Yet, since airline deregulation we have seen a number of serious declines in air service, while the cost of that service has increased. With AIR 21, we mean to do something about this decrease in service and increase in cost to the small airports and consumers across the Nation. Mr. Chairman, this bill makes a great deal more funding available to these small airports to address their infrastructure needs. I urge defeat of the pending amendment.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I salute the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), as well as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) for the work that has gone into putting together this Air 21. As a supporter of Air 21, I would like to point out a special feature of this legislation that will be added at a later point in today's proceedings as part of the manager's amendment. It has been the policy of the United States to promote transportation intermodalism. While we have integrated this concept throughout our ground transportation programs, it remains somewhat alien in Federal policy toward airport development. The amendment to be offered by the chairman today, offered shortly, includes a provision that I devised aimed at promoting transportation intermodalism under the AIP program. By facilitating projects which provide for air-to-truck, air-to-rail and air-to-transit movement of commodities and people, I believe we can enhance airport revenues and further stimulate regional economic development activities. So for this reason, as well as the many other important merits of this legislation, I urge support of it and at the proper time urge defeat of the major amendment that will be offered today by the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich).

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, the black helicopters are circling over our lands. And the agents of foreign powers are indeed locking up our public lands, intent upon not only controlling them, but ultimately, America's very natural resource heritage. But to be sure, the pilots of these helicopters are not wearing the blue helmets of the United Nations. Rather, they are wearing the corporate emblems of companies based in South Africa, Australia, Luxembourg and Canada. These foreign agents are not from the United Nations. Their weapons are not world heritage sites or international biospheres. Indeed, the true threat comes from foreign conglomerates, multi- national mining firms, who swoop down upon our public lands and extract gold and silver with no rents or royalties paid to the American people. The UN Charter, in this instance, is not the issue. It is our very own Mining Law of 1872 which continues, with reckless disregard to our economy and our environment, to turn over federal assets to the control of foreign nationals. And so, I rise in support of the Vento-Rahall-Miller amendment to this bill, the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act. For if we are to protect the sovereignty of our American lands from foreign powers, then we must include commercial developments undertaken by foreign powers in the legislation. This is what this amendment is all about. Our lands, our resources, owned by all Americans, are being claimed by foreign entities. The hardrock minerals on these lands are being mined with no return to the public. And these lands are being privatized by foreign entities for a mere pittance--$2.50 an acre. Allowed under the Mining Law of 1872? Yes. Should these practices continue to be condoned in 1999. No. Of course not. So the real issue here today is not what the proponents of H.R. 883 make it out to be. It is not about the UN. It is not about black helicopters descending upon an unsuspecting populace. It is, in these times of budgetary constraint, about the relinquishment of our lands, and our minerals, to multinational conglomerates for fast food hamburger prices. Cast a vote for America. Vote yes on Vento-Rahall-Miller.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, there are good riders and there are bad riders, and of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder. These appropriation bills more often than not contain riders which seek to overturn rulemakings which seek to protect overall public interests. Those are bad riders. In the case of the pending legislation there are two riders concerning hard rock mining on Western public lands. In the pending legislation there is, in effect, a provision which actually changes the operation of the Mining Law of 1872. This provision would waive mining law requirements as they relate to the amount of public land around mining claims that can be used to dispose of mining wastes. My colleagues from Florida and Washington have already spoken to this, and if they offer their motion to recommit, I will support it. I can certainly understand they need to provide jobs by mining employment in the Western lands. I have a similar concern in my area where coal mining prevails in southern West Virginia. But the rider on this bill is not limited to one particular mine. This is no small issue. We are talking about sizable quantities of public land. What is particularly galling is that after years and years of resistance to negotiating any reforms to Mining Law of 1872, we are faced with a rider that is stuck deep in the bowels of this emergency appropriation bill that favors one company. I urge recommittal.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for yielding this time to me, and I want to commend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) for the very strong leadership, determined effort and excellent grasp of the ramifications of steel dumping in this country has meant for our American worker and our American economy. Obviously I rise in support, Mr. Speaker, of this resolution and feel very strongly that it is vital in order to protect our American workers. Steel producers, as we all know and has been said, in other countries such as Japan, Brazil and Russia are heavily subsidized by their government and thus are able to take advantage of America's open markets by dumping excess steel here resulting in closed bankrupt steel plants and throwing thousands of our steelworkers out of their jobs, unable to sustain their families and their quality of life. But aside from the closure of our steel mills and unemployed workers is the impact that this could have on the future stability of the U.S. and how it could inhibit our national security. As has been said by others, we cannot sustain our Nation's armed forces, their equipment and weapons using Styrofoam and plastic. We have to have steel, particularly and preferably steel that comes from our own industry and our own workers, a known product, not from steel produced in foreign lands and dumped on our shores. The bill before us today directs the President to take the necessary steps including imposing quotas, tariff surcharges or negotiated enforceable voluntary export restraints that cap steel imports. The bill also requires the administration to establish a steel import notification and a monitoring program. Mr. Speaker, I am neither a protectionist nor a free trader. I believe in protecting our own labor force and our own industry, and H.R. 975 will do that. I urge my colleagues to stand up for steel, vote for this bill and create a level playing field for Americans for a change instead of our foreign trading partners whose governments subsidize them while breaking our laws. I thank the gentleman again for yielding time to me and commend him for his excellent leadership.